DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore elements, ‘first SMD’, ‘second SMD’, first contact, second contact, third contact, fourth contact must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 10.
…
a second SMD electrical component having a same physical size as the first SMD electrical component, vertically stacked over the first SMD electrical component, such that the first contact of the first SMD electrical component is directly over a third contact of the second SMD electrical component and the second contact of the first SMD electrical component is directly over a fourth contact of the second SMD electrical component,
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 described the second SMD is vertically stacked over the first SMD in the limitation "a second SMD electrical component having a same physical size as the first SMD electrical component, vertically stacked over the first SMD electrical component, " in lines 9-11. But the instant claim 1 then describes, that the contacts of the first SMD are over the contacts of the second SMD in lines 11-14, “such that the first contact of the first SMD electrical component is directly over a third contact of the second SMD electrical component and the second contact of the first SMD electrical component is directly over a fourth contact of the second SMD electrical component”. These are contradictory.
For examination, the limitataion, “a second SMD electrical component having a same physical size as the first SMD electrical component, vertically stacked over the first SMD electrical component, such that the first contact of the first SMD electrical component is directly over a third contact of the second SMD electrical component and the second contact of the first SMD electrical component is directly over a fourth contact of the second SMD electrical component” will be considered as ““a second SMD electrical component having a same physical size as the first SMD electrical component, vertically stacked over the first SMD electrical component, such that a third contact of the second SMD electrical component is directly over the first contact of the first SMD electrical component and a fourth contact of the second SMD electrical component is directly over the second contact of the first SMD electrical component”.
As claims 11-12 and 14-18 depend on the above rejected claim 10, they are also being rejected on the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (US 20140197526 A1, hereinafter Yoo‘526).
Regarding independent claim 10, Yoo‘526 teaches, “A semiconductor device assembly (fig. 1-5; ¶ [0003] - ¶ [0037]), comprising:
a substrate (110, fig. 2);
a first surface-mount device (SMD) electrical component (108b) attached to the substrate (110), the first SMD electrical component (108b) including a first contact and a second contact (124b);
a first wire bond (123b) electrically and physically coupled directly to the first contact (124b);
a second wire bond (123b) electrically and physically coupled directly to the second contact (124b); and
a second SMD electrical component (108a) having a same physical size as the first SMD electrical component (108b), vertically stacked over the first SMD electrical component (108a), such that a third contact (124a) of the second SMD electrical component (108a) is directly over the first contact (124b) of the first SMD electrical component (108b) and a fourth contact (124a) of the second SMD electrical component (108a) is directly over the second contact (124b) of the first SMD electrical component (108b), and separated from the first SMD electrical component (108a) by a non-conductive adhesive material (112)”.
Regarding claim 12, Yoo‘526 further teaches, “The semiconductor device assembly of claim 10, wherein the first SMD electrical component (108b, fig. 2) is attached to the substrate (110) by a non-conductive adhesive material (112)”.
Regarding claim 14, Yoo‘526 further teaches, “The semiconductor device assembly of claim 10, a third wire bond (123a, fig. 1) electrically and physically coupled directly to the third contact (124a), and a fourth wire bond (123a) electrically and physically coupled directly to the fourth contact (124a)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Yoo‘526 further teaches, “The semiconductor device assembly of claim 10, wherein the first wire bond (123b) and the second wire bond (123b) are at least partially encapsulated by the non-conductive adhesive material (112)”.
Regarding claim 16, Yoo‘526 further teaches, “The semiconductor device assembly of claim 10, wherein at least one of the first wire bond (123b) and the second wire bond (123b) is further electrically and physically coupled directly to a mounting pad (124c) of the substrate (110)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo‘526 as applied to claim 10 as above, and further in view of Chen (US 20160293521 A1, hereinafter Chen‘521) of record.
Regarding claim 11, Yoo‘526 teach all the limitations described in claim 10.
But Yoo‘526 is silent upon the provision of wherein the second contact of the first SMD electrical component comprises an outermost layer of gold.
However, Chen‘521 teaches, “wherein the second contact (304) of the SMD electrical component comprises an outermost layer of gold (¶ 0035)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention was made to use gold to make the contact of the SMD electrical component, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, Yoo‘526 modified with Chen‘521 further teaches, “The semiconductor device assembly of claim 10, wherein the first contact and second contact (302 and 304, Chen‘521) are each substantially free from any solder material (¶ 0035)”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo‘526 as applied to claim 10 as above, and further in view of GRAZIOSI et al. (US 20210305203 A1, hereinafter Graziosi‘203).
Regarding claim 17, Yoo‘526 teaches all the limitations described in claim 10.
But Yoo‘526 is silent upon the provision of wherein the semiconductor device assembly of claim 10, further comprising a semiconductor device carried by the substrate, and wherein at least one of the first wire bond and the second wire bond is further electrically and physically coupled directly to a device pad of the semiconductor device.
However, Graziosi‘203 teaches a similar semiconductor device assembly (fig. 7-8) “comprising a semiconductor device (41) carried by the substrate (2), and wherein at least one of the first wire bond (210) and the second wire bond is further electrically and physically coupled directly to a device pad (106) of the semiconductor device (41)”.
Yoo‘526 and Graziosi‘203 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yoo‘526 with the features of Graziosi‘203 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Yoo‘526 and Graziosi‘203 to multiple device and connected with device pads and wire bonds according to the teachings of Graziosi‘203 with a general motivation of accommodate multiple semiconductor devices in the same assembly to save space and reduce connection resistances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights